Actually reminded me of Ebert’s review of The One. He roasted it while accurately predicting that a basic person like me would love it.
If you just saw 1.5/5 you’d think wow what a stinker and miss out on this incredible brainless vibe piece sitting at the border of 90-00 dripping in pre-cringe cool, just before everything would get way too gritty and serious.
Yeah it depends on what you want from a movie. My favourite Siskel and Ebert review was for the third Inidana Jones movie. Siskel didn’t like it because there wasn’t enough depth to the father and son relationship. Ebert recommended it because, well you got to an Indiana Jones movie for the action, and the action scenes were good.
So I’m Ebert’s side on that one, because yeah I’m going there to see Indy on horseback go up against a tank. Sure maybe the father and son relationship didn’t have a lot of depth, but that was because their conversations kept getting interrupted by action scenes. Which is what I’m there to see.
So it’s not that Siskel was wrong, I just don’t care about what he was criticizing on that one. If it were more of an arthouse drama kind of thing, then I would care about his criticism. But the discussion indicates the father-son parts of the movie weren’t bad, just there wasn’t a lot. Too me there was enough of that for an action movie, so it’s a good movie.
Hearing the different perspectives meant you could decide which one you care about most and gave a better indication of whether you will like the move.
90% on rotten tomatoes? I don’t know what that means.
Actually reminded me of Ebert’s review of The One. He roasted it while accurately predicting that a basic person like me would love it.
If you just saw 1.5/5 you’d think wow what a stinker and miss out on this incredible brainless vibe piece sitting at the border of 90-00 dripping in pre-cringe cool, just before everything would get way too gritty and serious.
Yeah it depends on what you want from a movie. My favourite Siskel and Ebert review was for the third Inidana Jones movie. Siskel didn’t like it because there wasn’t enough depth to the father and son relationship. Ebert recommended it because, well you got to an Indiana Jones movie for the action, and the action scenes were good.
So I’m Ebert’s side on that one, because yeah I’m going there to see Indy on horseback go up against a tank. Sure maybe the father and son relationship didn’t have a lot of depth, but that was because their conversations kept getting interrupted by action scenes. Which is what I’m there to see.
So it’s not that Siskel was wrong, I just don’t care about what he was criticizing on that one. If it were more of an arthouse drama kind of thing, then I would care about his criticism. But the discussion indicates the father-son parts of the movie weren’t bad, just there wasn’t a lot. Too me there was enough of that for an action movie, so it’s a good movie.
Hearing the different perspectives meant you could decide which one you care about most and gave a better indication of whether you will like the move.
90% on rotten tomatoes? I don’t know what that means.